start_mission

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that missions are observable/pollable, that the tool returns a missionId, and that execution path depends on template type and template_version pinning: "Legacy templates run through the hand-coded path; data-driven templates run through the v2 composition runner." It stops short of disclosing side effects, permissions, or idempotency behavior, so it isn't a 5, but it covers the core behavior well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences and every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage condition, return/polling guidance, and execution-path nuance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity — 4 parameters, nested params object, no output schema, and a large sibling set — the description is mostly complete. It states return value (missionId), the polling route, and how it differs from single API calls. Minor gaps like error handling, cost, or cancellation are not mentioned, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it mentions template_version pinning in the context of execution path, but the schema already explains each parameter clearly. Thus 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — "Start a mission" — and expands on what a mission is: "a structured, observable orchestration that runs on APIClaw's runtime." It clearly differentiates from a single API call, which is the relevant sibling (call_api), so an agent can immediately tell when this tool is the right one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states the intended use case: "Use this when the user wants to spin up a multi-step task rather than a single API call." This tells the agent not only when to use start_mission, but also implicitly directs single-call scenarios to a sibling. It additionally points the agent to mission_status for polling the returned missionId, which is actionable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.